A widely researched panacea for reducing intergroup prejudice is the contact hypothesis. However, few longitudinal studies can shed light on the direction of causal processes: from contact to prejudice reduction (contact effects) or from prejudice to contact reduction (prejudice effects). The authors conducted a longitudinal field survey in Germany, Belgium, and England with school students. The sample comprised members of both ethnic minorities (n = 512) and ethnic majorities (n = 1,143). Path analyses yielded both lagged contact effects and prejudice effects: Contact reduced prejudice, but prejudice also reduced contact. Furthermore, contact effects were negligible for minority members. These effects were obtained for 2 indicators of prejudice: negative intergroup emotions and desire for social distance. For both majority and minority members, contact effects on negative emotions were stronger when outgroup contacts were perceived as being typical of their group. Contact effects were also mediated by intergroup anxiety. This mediating mechanism was impaired for minority members because of a weakened effect of anxiety on desire for social distance. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Predictions by social identity theory (SIT) and relative deprivation theory (RDT) concerning preferences for strategies to cope with a negative in-group status position were tested. The focus of the present research was a comparison of the theories regarding their differential patterns of prediction. For this purpose, a natural sample within a specific historical situation was investigated: East Germans after the German unification. First, the predictive power of SIT and RDT variables was tested separately. In a second step, a possible integration of the theories was addressed. Combining the SIT variables and RDT variables led to an integrated model indicating a differential pattern of prediction for intergroup strategies. The RDT components explained the collective responses, whereas SIT constructs were related to individual strategies. People prefer a positive self-evaluation that is based on their own judgments as well as those of others (Taylor & Brown, 1988). They try to differentiate themselves positively from others. One important source of self-evaluation is the relative status position of the groups people belong to and identify with. Depending on the outcome of a comparison with relevant out-groups, this status position may be characterized as advantaged or as disadvantaged. Such an unsatisfactory status position leads to engagement in strategies to cope with and overcome an unsatisfactory status position. Likewise, if questioned, people tend to defend a satisfactory status position and maintain a positive in-group evaluation. These strategic responses are modes of intergroup behavior. Theories of intergroup relations provide explanatory concepts to understand and, more important, to predict preferences for various kinds of intergroup behavior. Two prominent theories in this domain are social identity theory (

In this article, we present a theoretical approach to social discrimination on the one hand and intergroup relations characterized by tolerance and plurality on the other hand. Central to the analysis is the question of how members deal with intergroup difference. If the outgroup's difference is judged to be non-normative and inferior, devaluation, discrimination, and hostility are likely responses toward the outgroup. Judging the outgroup's difference to be normative or positive leads to acceptance and appreciation of this group. Following self-categorization theory, the criteria being norms and values for judging intergroup differences are derived from the superordinate category that is perceived to include both groups. More specifically, they are derived from the prototype, or representation, of this inclusive category. Social discrimination results from the generalization of ingroup attributes to the inclusive category, which then become criteria for judging the outgroup. Tolerance, on the other hand, is conceptualized as either a lack of inclusion of both groups in a higher order category or as the representation of the inclusive category in such a way as to also include the other group and designate it as normative.

No abstract

It is argued that the differentiation between nationalism and patriotism proposed in the literature can be seen as analogous to judgments based on different types of comparisons: intergroup comparisons with other nations are associated with intergroup behaviour that corresponds to nationalism, whereas temporal or standard comparisons are linked with behaviour that corresponds to patriotism. Four studies (N = 103, 107, 96 and 105) conducted in Germany and Britain examined the hypothesis that national identification and in-group evaluation only show a reliable relationship with out-group rejection under an intergroup comparison orientation. Participants were primed with either an intergroup comparison, a temporal comparison or no explicit comparison orientation. A subsequent questionnaire assessed in-group (own country) identification, in-group evaluation (i.e. national pride) and rejection of national out-groups. Across all four studies, both in-group identification and in-group evaluation show a stronger correlation with out-group derogation if participants were primed with an intergroup comparison orientation compared to temporal and control conditions. Results are discussed with regard to nationalism and patriotism as well as Hinkle and Brown's (1990) model on relational vs. autonomous orientations.

No abstract

In an approach to intergroup discrimination and tolerance, it is assumed that the outgroup's difference from the ingroup is evaluated with reference to the prototype of the higher-order category that includes both groups. Two correlational studies yielded evidence that (a) group members tend to perceive their ingroup as relatively prototypical for the inclusive category (projection), (b) members highly identified with both ingroup and inclusive category (dual identity) tend to project most, and (c) relative prototypicality is related to negative attitudes toward the outgroup. The latter relation was further specified in Study 3, manipulating the valence of the inclusive category. Projection was related to more negative attitudes toward the outgroup when the inclusive category was primed positively but to more positive attitudes when it was primed negatively. The meaning of dual identities for intergroup relations is discussed.

No abstract